If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

Hey fellows I have a question to the lore masters at hand:
What do we have on the origin of Hobbits? And I don't mean their petty family trees and customs, but what they actually are and how they came into being?
We know about the first and second born and adoptives (dwarves). A Hobbit is counted to the second born, but shows some qualities of a dwarf actually. I mean for real, even a master of knowledge like Sauron didn't ever hear of Hobbits before. So what is a Halfling? And if yes, how?

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

Hobbits are a branch of Men;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did. ...A love of learning (other than genealogical lore) was far from general among them, but there remained still a few in the older families who studied their own books, and even gathered reports of old times and distant lands from Elves, Dwarves, and Men. Their own records began only after the settlement of the Shire, and their most ancient legends hardly looked further back than their Wandering Days. It is clear, nonetheless, from these legends, and from the evidence of their peculiar words and customs, that like many other folk Hobbits had in the distant past moved westward. Their earliest tales seem to glimpse a time when they dwelt in the upper vales of Anduin, between the eaves of Greenwood the Great and the Misty Mountains. Why they later undertook the hard and perilous crossing of the mountains into Eriador is no longer certain. Their own accounts speak of the multiplying of Men in the land, and of a shadow that fell on the forest, so that it became darkened and its new name was Mirkwood.
- FotR; Concerning Hobbits.

The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race (not Elves or Dwarves) - hence the two kinds can dwell together (as at Bree), and are called just the Big Folk and Little Folk. They are entirely without non-human powers, but are represented as being more in touch with 'nature' (the soil and other living things, plants and animals), and abnormally, for humans, free from ambition or greed of wealth. They are made small (little more than half human stature, but dwindling as the years pass) partly to exhibit the pettiness of man, plain unimaginative parochial man though not with either the smallness or the savageness of Swift, and mostly to show up, in creatures of very small physical power, the amazing and unexpected heroism of ordinary men 'at a pinch'.
- Letter 131

(The first quote easily cause the notion that Dwarves are the same biological bransch of species as the two others but that isn't the situation naturally).

The Hobbits came wandering from the east, and is first known from the Vale of Anduin as noted, but may come from further east of there of course.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

Originally Posted by Ngugi

@ muller'
Not quite, the changes in matter are due to the more speedy time; the sun and the moon.
And this is not a machination of Morgoth, be it because to Morgoth, but not more so than the rain or snow are result of Morgoth affecting heat and cold but not the water itself (if to go with the older version, where the sun have not been present all the time).
Either way development and change is part of the world, and since trying to stop that like with the Rings, is close to an evil thing we can assume the change (of which evolution ought to be seen as a part of) is part of Eru's original intention.

But all in all I do not think a coherence with Darwinism carry much weight, since his stories take a religious and mythological starting point, meaning the story is written that way and should be read that way just as we read old Norse legends etc without feeling the need to adjust it to modern scientific insights?

I cannot agree with you Ngugi on this matter. Philosophically, the Sun and the Moon are reactions too the marring of Arda, they are a sympton of its marring. In fact the Trees themselves the source of light in the fortress of Valainor are only a reaction too that marring. The original light is the lamps, the source of the trees and therefore the Sun and the Moon are originated in the Lamps. The Lamps destroyed by the full might of Morgoth at his coming in his full incarnate power. A time when he defeated by himself the combined valar before the arrival of Tulkas.

Too me this means the origin of the world itself was perfection, can you give less credit to the Valar, when their authority was unchallenged. Too me evolution began at the darkening of Arda, the destruction of the lamps, and the first Victory of Morgoth. Without that victory there is no reasoning behind the Passing of the Elves into Aman. The Second war is only too remove the Elves from the infection of Morgoththat they cannot overcome. That infection is evolution in my mind.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

You forget Muller. That it is all part of Eru's grand plan. The marring started the second Melkor defied Eru, as Eru probably foresaw he would.

Evolution is thus also part of Eru's grand scheme of things.

This actually means nothing in the workings of Arda how it played out, it only makes Eru guilty of intelligent design, using Melkor as his source of intelligent design. You actually may be hinting that Melkor is acting beyond the music, if this was possible he would not have allowed Melkor to inteject personal themes into the chorus, which means Eru is limited, he is not, the Valar are, their created perfection was marred and it was Eru's will that be so or free will could not exist.

Melkor's purpose does not exist outside of Eru, all do his Eru's will, even Melkor.

I only say evolution is the marring, and yes Eru means for it too happen and Melkor is the tool of God.

All even Melkor are subject to Eru, Melkor does not accept his subjugation, and foolishly thinls that he acts beyond it, he does not.

Edit:
Macirilles post and mine are the same we only approach at different paths, Macilrilles statement says evolution is an invention of Eru directly applied , I say evolution is an invention of Eru applied through Melkor. We have the same source, I say only that Melkor had a decision too make and Eru knew what he would to do.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

Will make a dig in on the topic; we'll see weither I end up arguing evolution is a feat of Arda unmarred, a result of Arda marred (planned or not) or a brand new third thesis. Hope for either first or third, never wrong when the lore-interpetation-sabers fly a little hahaha

Edit: in the meantime I wonder - did Firebeards and Broadbeams have kings of their own after their mansions fall? The only, but important, sign for it would be the 7 hords or the 7 Dwarfkings.
However it may be noted that Dwarves could break away from their peoples, see Pettydwarves, meaning such could have kings fo their own. And we have no chronological references to these treasures. lastly they are only refered to in and thus as legends AFAIK, and Tolkien stated Men in greed did not have only truthful accounts of the Dwarves.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

Seven rings were given to the dwarflords in their halls of stone. Was it only Khazad Dum? were they gathered there, have the seven houses been so defeated that they thier lords have gathered under Durin at the time. I don't think so, Only the dwarves of Durins house fought in the last alliance. Dwarvish lore is a weakness of mine though, more than ready to be educated on the matter.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

Dwaven lords would caused no problems, since lords among them were many, but elsewhere they are called directly Kings;

‘The Three, fairest of all, the Elf-lords hid from him, and his hand never touched them or sullied them. Seven the Dwarf-kings possessed, but three he has recovered, and the others the dragons have consumed.
- Gandalf, FotR; The Shadow of the Past

Multiple Rings within a royal huse is naturally possible, if both King and heir is holding one (remember that Thror have no problem to give Thrain his Ring, no the One-addiction - for Dwarves at least).

EDIT: To Khazad-dűm presumably only D˙rin's Ring was in posession as Sauron was at war with them after he collected the rest of the Seven and handed them out, if to belive the Dwarves own saga of how they got it from the Elves, and Sauron could not hand them more.
But if Sauron gave them Durin's then more could been given to them, and they were lost in the Grey Mountains after Moria had fallen, but Tolkien never mentioned them.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

The Seven Dwarf-rings were the Rings of Power given to seven Dwarf Lords by Sauron in the guise of Annatar. Apparently the Lords were the Kings of the Seven Houses, as Gandalf mentions that the Rings were given to the "Dwarf-kings".

But since its been said they have lost most of them via Sauron and Dragons. I don't believe there is anything talking of any other Dwarf Kings besides Durin's Folk. But I personally think there may of still been a few kings around if not reestablished their claims after the war of the ring. But I don't think there is really much on the subject so its hard to say.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

Yeah, the four other Houses did live in the east, and are named Ironfists, Stiffbeards, Blacklocks and Stonefoots.
As a rule their kings are considered to got Rings, horded wealth and been attacked by dragons yes.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

I always thought it was a pity that there wasn't more written on the other houses. They seem interesting (as all of Tolkiens work is really ) and i really wonder if he would have carried through with the statements in the Hobbit about how other houses of dwarves traded with goblins. I mean it seems very plausible considering the actions of some of them in the Second Age(?).

Were there but a tree in this godforsaken place i would have hanged myself.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

Perhaps the plan all along was for the Dwarf Kings to take the rings, acquire wealth and attract Dragons into their realms?

No doubt Sauron intended to try to control dwarves with the rings, but as a back-up plan it makes sense: he made his own followers wealthy when he wanted to, so making dwarves wealthy was in his power (I imagine). Naturally wealth attracts dragons but it may be he put a little "dragon-attractor" in each of the dwarf rings too.

Most fiendish of all would be if the rings (once swallowed) became remote-dragon-control devices, but alas they melted in dragon fire.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

Doubt that, even if I think Sauron indeed was pleased to find out the Dwarven-Dragon quarrel that arised, looking at the textures;

But Sauron gathered into his hands all the remaining Rings of Power; and he dealt them out to the other peoples of Middle-earth, hoping thus to bring under his sway all those that desired secret power beyond the measure of their kind. Seven Rings he gave to the Dwarves; but to Men he gave nine, for Men proved in this matter as in others the readiest to his will. And all those rings that he governed he perverted, the more easily since he had a part in their making, and they were accursed, and they betrayed in the end all those that used them. The Dwarves indeed proved tough and hard to tame; they ill endure the domination of others, and the thoughts of their hearts are hard to fathom, nor can they be turned to shadows. They used their rings only for the getting of wealth; but wrath and an over-mastering greed of gold were kindled in their hearts, of which evil enough after came to the profit of Sauron. It is said that the foundation of each of the Seven Hoards of the Dwarf-kings of old was a golden ring; but all those hoards long ago were plundered and the Dragons devoured them, and of the Seven Rings some were consumed in fire and some Sauron recovered.
- Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

For the Dwarves had proved untameable by this means. The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things, so that if they lacked them all other good things seemed profitless, and they were filled with wrath and desire for vengeance on all who deprived them.But they were made from their beginning of a kind to resist most steadfastly any domination. Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be reduced to shadows enslaved to another will; and for the same reason their lives were not affected by any Ring, to live either longer or shorter because of it. All the more did Sauron hate the possessors and desire to dispossess them.- Appendix A; Durin's Folk

However I think he was more glad over that the Rings still caused fuzz, but less so that Rings were destroyed as a result of Dragon interest in the wealth the Rings resulted in.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

The One play on it's own level, and the reistance of the Dwarves was that they could not be slaves to Sauron trough their Rings, but it's obvious they are easy corrupted by their own lusts and wills, making Gimli a weak carrier by all estimations.

The Ring was unbreakable by any smithcraft less than his own. It was indissoluble in any fire, save the undying subterranean fire where it was made – and that was unapproachable, in Mordor. Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of any will (even his own) to injure it, cast it away, or neglect it.
- Letter 131

It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power.
- Letter 246

The Hobbit-kind who lusted not for wealth or power (as a rule, Smeagol for example was a greedy bloke) were splendid wearers in this manner, it would be hard for the One to corrupt them since their lusts were not in line with what the Ring really can offer; all they really wanted they already had in the Shire and the Ring was just a threat and in opposition to their dreams (my general theory why Bombadil was 'immune', that he simply could not be lured since he was completly content with what he had).

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

You should also have in mind that such individuals as Gandalf and Galadriel, borh powerfull, were afraid of taking the One Ring, and of what it could offer to them. The lack of influence of One Ring over Bombadil may come from his very nature, for he is most likely Maiar and potentialy very powerful one.

Re: Tolkien General Discussion II

Gandalf is a very mighty Maia as well, and not even Sauron is assumed to be free from the lure of the Ring [sic], however it's the whish to use the Ring to fulfill desires that is the trap which both these would fall for as well as the other Wise fear to do and Boromir does, but Bombadil, unless he's a being of a unknown kind, according to my perception do not have desires to lure him with and thus is unaffected by the Ring